Ted Cruz To Introduce Constitutional Amendment On Gay Marriage After Supreme Court Ducks Appeals

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The proposed amendment says nothing about same sex marriage. The amendment secures state's rights in defining marriage for themselves.

Which in essence seeks to amend the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment guarantees all persons living in a state the right to access that state's laws, including marriage law, law that same-sex couples are eligible to participate in. That can't be changed by 'amending' the Constitution to contrive a 'marriage exclusion' to the 14th Amendment, such a Constitutional 'carve out' can only be done by the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

The proposed amendment says nothing about same sex marriage. The amendment secures state's rights in defining marriage for themselves.

Which in essence seeks to amend the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment guarantees all persons living in a state the right to access that state's laws, including marriage law, law that same-sex couples are eligible to participate in. That can't be changed by 'amending' the Constitution to contrive a 'marriage exclusion' to the 14th Amendment, such a Constitutional 'carve out' can only be done by the Supreme Court.

I disagree. An amendment can carve out anything. There are no restrictions to it. It is one of the few methods in which the majority can absolutely strip rights or do pretty much whatever they want. Which is why its so freaking hard to do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The proposed amendment says nothing about same sex marriage. The amendment secures state's rights in defining marriage for themselves.

Which in essence seeks to amend the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment guarantees all persons living in a state the right to access that state's laws, including marriage law, law that same-sex couples are eligible to participate in. That can't be changed by 'amending' the Constitution to contrive a 'marriage exclusion' to the 14th Amendment, such a Constitutional 'carve out' can only be done by the Supreme Court.

I disagree. An amendment can carve out anything. There are no restrictions to it. It is one of the few methods in which the majority can absolutely strip rights or do pretty much whatever they want. Which is why its so freaking hard to do.

Actually not.

Two Amendment can't co-exist, one seeking to 'nullify' a provision of the other.

That's why the Second Amendment doesn't 'authorize' citizens to 'take up arms' against the Federal government should those citizens subjectively perceive the Federal government as 'tyrannical,' as to do so would deny the people their First Amendment right to first petition the government for a redress of grievances.


A majority of the people are indeed at liberty to amend the Constitution to afford the states the sole authority to determine who may or may not access marriage law – and the goal of such an amendment would be to repeal the 14th Amendment, not the 'amendment' Cruz is proposing, as what he seeks is interpretive, the sole purview of the courts.

 

[TemplarKormac]

No one had ever denied a male from marrying a female.

The Commonwealth of Virginia denied marriage to Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter.


>>>>

A ruling that would be undone if Cruz's ammendment passes.

Which, of course, it won't. Its classic Cruz: full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5.

Now, he has everything in common with every other politician in Washington, they are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I left out the 'tale told by an idiot' part out of simple courtesy.

Well, did you consider that the rest of them are idiots too?

 

[JWBooth]

Great news. Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals Hot Air

Pre-potus campaign electioneering, candy bars and ice cream for the faithful, the lack of serious intent to forward an issue can be determined by how rapidly the call goes out for a constitutional amendment. Now if an attempt was made to limit or exclude the subject from judicial jurisdiction I might take it seriously.

 

[The Rabbi]

Let me show you. Its really not that hard.

The amendment is so poorly worded that it would make interracial marriage bans perfectly legal. In the case of interracial marriage bans, they were forbidden by the Supreme Court in their landmark ruling Loving V. Virginia. In which the portions of Virignia marriage law that made interracial marriage was overturned as unconstitutional. If the State marriage laws become absolute and can't be overruled or reviewed by the courts.......then such interracial marriage bans would again be perfectly legal.

See? Now you try.

I heard it was so poorly worded that cannibalism would break out. See, if a state passed a marriage law allowing cannibalism then no one could overturn that. If a state passed a marriage law that allowed it to return to Mexico, no one could overturn that.
That's how that works.
Because there are gazillions of people agitating for outlawing mixed race marriages, right?

 

[Stephanie]

ANYONE upset with how this all went down on you needs to get behind Mr. CRUZ. and start hounding your Representives

 

[Pop23]

You know...for someone so certain the states will vote in gay marriage, you're sure fighting like hell to make sure they don't have that right to self-rule.

Wonder why that is with all your "professed optimism" about the public's views on gay marriage?

The State's haven't been able to vote away rights since the 14th amendment was passed. And I don't hear so much lamenting about State's Rights when the USSC overturned gun control legislation that was created using State authority.

Read the constitution some time. Might open your eyes a bit

 

[The Rabbi]

Ted Cruz has the right idea even though he is not constitutionally eligible for Article 2 Section 1since he is Canadian born.

Oh heck... that's all been done away with since a kenyan was elected president twice. Where you were born doesn't matter anymore... everyone just looks the other way and pretends everything is OK.

Its funny....Ted Cruz actually is everything that the birthers accused Obama of being. And yet when they are asked to apply their standards to Cruz, they don't.

Odd that. Its almost like they were politically motivated.

What country was Cruz a citizen of when he was born?
Yeah, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know...for someone so certain the states will vote in gay marriage, you're sure fighting like hell to make sure they don't have that right to self-rule.

Wonder why that is with all your "professed optimism" about the public's views on gay marriage?

The State's haven't been able to vote away rights since the 14th amendment was passed. And I don't hear so much lamenting about State's Rights when the USSC overturned gun control legislation that was created using State authority.

It was explicitly in the Constitution.
Where is marriage explicitly in the COnstitution? OTOH, the 10thA does say explicitly anything not enumerated in the document remains a right of the states or the people. Like marriage, which has traditionally been a state prerogative.

 

[Darkwind]

Ted Cruz needs to rewrite his amendment to remove government from marriage and the privacy of ALL of its citizens.

Each and every excuse for government to interject itself into the private lives of the citizen, each of us is harmed to a great extent.

 

[Skylar]

Actually not.

Two Amendment can't co-exist, one seeking to 'nullify' a provision of the other.

The latter trumps the former. Take a look at the 21st in relation to the 18th. Any amendment that exists can be overriden by a later amendment as can any portion of the constitution. And there are no limits on what amendments can do, what rights they can strip away. They are the sole method of modification of our system of government that has no check nor balance.

And why they are so hard to implement.

That's why the Second Amendment doesn't 'authorize' citizens to 'take up arms' against the Federal government should those citizens subjectively perceive the Federal government as 'tyrannical,' as to do so would deny the people their First Amendment right to first petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The 2nd amendment could be repealed with the appropriate amendment. There's nothing that prevents it constitutionally. Though plenty that would prevent it practically. Namely, such an amendment would never pass.

But as the issue we're discussing is the scope and power of passed amendments, the point stands: an amendment can change anything in the US constitution. There are no restrictions. There is no power that couldn't be stripped, no process that couldn't be modified, no office that couldn't be eliminated, no right that couldn't be abrogated. Amendments are the ultimate trump card.

 

[Skylar]

You know...for someone so certain the states will vote in gay marriage, you're sure fighting like hell to make sure they don't have that right to self-rule.

Wonder why that is with all your "professed optimism" about the public's views on gay marriage?

The State's haven't been able to vote away rights since the 14th amendment was passed. And I don't hear so much lamenting about State's Rights when the USSC overturned gun control legislation that was created using State authority.

Read the constitution some time. Might open your eyes a bit

I've read it. Take a look at the 9th amendment. Its quite interesting.

The USSC used it when recognizing the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' that they used to overturn laws created using State power in Chicago v. MacDonald.

The USSC used it when recognizing the 'right to marry' in Loving V. Virginia.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually not.

Two Amendment can't co-exist, one seeking to 'nullify' a provision of the other.

The latter trumps the former. Take a look at the 21st in relation to the 18th. Any amendment that exists can be overriden by a later amendment as can any portion of the constitution. And there are no limits on what amendments can do, what rights they can strip away. They are the sole method of modification of our system of government that has no check nor balance.

And why they are so hard to implement.

That's why the Second Amendment doesn't 'authorize' citizens to 'take up arms' against the Federal government should those citizens subjectively perceive the Federal government as 'tyrannical,' as to do so would deny the people their First Amendment right to first petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The 2nd amendment could be repealed with the appropriate amendment. There's nothing that prevents it constitutionally. Though plenty that would prevent it practically. Namely, such an amendment would never pass.

But as the issue we're discussing is the scope and power of passed amendments, the point stands: an amendment can change anything in the US constitution. There are no restrictions. There is no power that couldn't be stripped, no process that couldn't be modified, no office that couldn't be eliminated, no right that couldn't be abrogated. Amendments are the ultimate trump card.

I heard Cruz's amendment is so poorly worded it would make murder legal.

 

[Skylar]

You know...for someone so certain the states will vote in gay marriage, you're sure fighting like hell to make sure they don't have that right to self-rule.

Wonder why that is with all your "professed optimism" about the public's views on gay marriage?

The State's haven't been able to vote away rights since the 14th amendment was passed. And I don't hear so much lamenting about State's Rights when the USSC overturned gun control legislation that was created using State authority.

It was explicitly in the Constitution.
Where is marriage explicitly in the COnstitution? OTOH, the 10thA does say explicitly anything not enumerated in the document remains a right of the states or the people. Like marriage, which has traditionally been a state prerogative.

The 'right to self defense with a fire arm' was the basis of the court's ruling overturning gun control legislation created using State power in McDonald V. Chicago. Please show me where in the constitution it is explicitly stated.

You'll be searching for a very long time, as it doesn't exist. And it doesn't matter in the slightest in terms of protection by the courts or limits to State power. An unemumerated right can no more be abrogated than an enumerated one.

The 9th amendment explicitly states that the people possess other rights than those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Your folly is in assuming that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist. That's simply not the case. Your misconception is the very reason the 9th amendment was created. As many opponents of the Bill of Rights were afraid that enumerating rights would lead some hapless souls to believe that ONLY those rights existed. That rights were exhaustive. Obviously, that fear was thoroughly justified.

As you just demonstrated for us so elegantly.

 

[Skylar]

I heard Cruz's amendment is so poorly worded it would make murder legal.

Yeah, but the poor fool who said that couldn't explain how Cruz's amendment could possibly result in legal murder. Making the claim inconsequential.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know...for someone so certain the states will vote in gay marriage, you're sure fighting like hell to make sure they don't have that right to self-rule.

Wonder why that is with all your "professed optimism" about the public's views on gay marriage?

The State's haven't been able to vote away rights since the 14th amendment was passed. And I don't hear so much lamenting about State's Rights when the USSC overturned gun control legislation that was created using State authority.

It was explicitly in the Constitution.
Where is marriage explicitly in the COnstitution? OTOH, the 10thA does say explicitly anything not enumerated in the document remains a right of the states or the people. Like marriage, which has traditionally been a state prerogative.

The 'right to self defense with a fire arm' was the basis of the court's ruling overturning gun control legislation created using State power in McDonald V. Chicago. Please show me where in the constitution it is explicitly stated.

You'll be searching for a very long time, as it doesn't exist. And it doesn't matter in the slightest in terms of protection by the courts or limits to State power. An unemumerated right can no more be abrogated than an enumerated one.

The 9th amendment explicitly states that the people possess other rights than those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Your folly is in assuming that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist. That's simply not the case. Your misconception is the very reason the 9th amendment was created. As many opponents of the Bill of Rights were afraid that enumerating rights would lead some hapless souls to believe that ONLY those rights existed. That rights were exhaustive. Obviously, that fear was thoroughly justified.

As you just demonstrated for us so elegantly.

As usual your "analysis" is laughable. McDonald was predicated on Heller, which held the 2A was an individual right. McDonald expanded that to inclide the states under the obligation. All of that is explicit in the 2A and Scalia's masterful opinion is a model of original construction.

 

[The Rabbi]

I heard Cruz's amendment is so poorly worded it would make murder legal.

Yeah, but the poor fool who said that couldn't explain how Cruz's amendment could possibly result in legal murder. Making the claim inconsequential.

"An amendment can change anything in the Constitution." Some Constitutional scholar propounded that nugget.

 

[Skylar]

Ted Cruz needs to rewrite his amendment to remove government from marriage and the privacy of ALL of its citizens.

Each and every excuse for government to interject itself into the private lives of the citizen, each of us is harmed to a great extent.

If you want a 'marriage' that isn't recognized by the government nor defined by the government, you have it. Anyone can have a ceremony attended by anyone, officiated by most anyone, that does most anything. And they can call it whatever they'd like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ted Cruz needs to rewrite his amendment to remove government from marriage and the privacy of ALL of its citizens.

Each and every excuse for government to interject itself into the private lives of the citizen, each of us is harmed to a great extent.

If you want a 'marriage' that isn't recognized by the government nor defined by the government, you have it. Anyone can have a ceremony attended by anyone, officiated by most anyone, that does most anything. And they can call it whatever they'd like.

Thanks for pointing out that no state bans gay marriage.